What if the British decided to conduct a close blockade of Germany in 1914? Would it help end the war sooner? Would it give Germany an opportunity to score victory against the thinly spread RN?
your thoughts
your thoughts
WI: British Close Blockade in WWI
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Generally..... yes.
The British only cancelled the idea of a close blockade in 1912, so not that far off from the war.This would entail having the Grand Fleet postioned somewhere other than Scapa Flow.
Generally..... yes.
This would entail having the Grand Fleet postioned somewhere other than Scapa Flow.
if they're lucky they gain a result similar to the japanese navy's blockade of Port Arthur during the russian-japanese war. more likely they bleed from submarines and mines and reevaluate the strategy quickly.
BlondieBC
Banned
UK takes losses until it decides it is a bad idea, and gives up and goes to a distant blockade. Submarines and torpedo boats will hunt the ships that are just a few 10's of miles from port. Germany will lose some submarines and torpedo boats, but the British losses will be worse.
We have an example in WW1, near Gallipoli. The British kept ships in a pattern similar to what a close blockade in the North Sea would have been. The Germans had very few U-boats in the area (3-6 from memory), and second class Ottoman lighter ships. These ships claimed 3-4 capital ships in the Feb-June 1915 time frame. In the North Seas, the Germans will have up to 144 torpedo boats that can be used, well over 20 submarines. It will be short and bloody for the Royal Navy, who will pull back and can whoever decide to do a close blockade. My guess is the "close blockade" phase would last under 4 weeks, perhaps just a few days.
If writing a TL, there is only three big questions.
1) How do I write a POD that passes the smell test?
2) How many major ships is the British Admiralty willing to lose before retreating?
3) If the Germans get some initial success, would they be dumb enough to come out and fight with the main fleet?
Besides the unfortunate death of a few thousand more British Sailors and dealing with a flock of butterflies related to USW, German morale, and when neutrals enter the war; I don't see it changing much unless you get to the ASB part when the UK refuse to abandon the close blockade.
We have an example in WW1, near Gallipoli. The British kept ships in a pattern similar to what a close blockade in the North Sea would have been. The Germans had very few U-boats in the area (3-6 from memory), and second class Ottoman lighter ships. These ships claimed 3-4 capital ships in the Feb-June 1915 time frame. In the North Seas, the Germans will have up to 144 torpedo boats that can be used, well over 20 submarines. It will be short and bloody for the Royal Navy, who will pull back and can whoever decide to do a close blockade. My guess is the "close blockade" phase would last under 4 weeks, perhaps just a few days.
If writing a TL, there is only three big questions.
1) How do I write a POD that passes the smell test?
2) How many major ships is the British Admiralty willing to lose before retreating?
3) If the Germans get some initial success, would they be dumb enough to come out and fight with the main fleet?
Besides the unfortunate death of a few thousand more British Sailors and dealing with a flock of butterflies related to USW, German morale, and when neutrals enter the war; I don't see it changing much unless you get to the ASB part when the UK refuse to abandon the close blockade.
You get this event repeated a few times on a larger scale till the RN pulls back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_22_September_1914
Perhaps mixed in with stuff like Battle of Helgoland Blight. Over all I would expect the losses to favor the Geramns though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_22_September_1914
Perhaps mixed in with stuff like Battle of Helgoland Blight. Over all I would expect the losses to favor the Geramns though.
Even when Britain was planning a close blockade it wasn't going to use capital ships close to the port. The actual blockade work would be conducted by light forces; destroyers, light cruisers, merchant cruisers, mine layers, etc. The capital ships would be held back, only venturing near the coast to support the light forces if they were brought to action by the enemy. In light of this I'm skeptical as to how close Gallipoli is to the projected close blockade. Gallipoli was an operation to force the straits and later to suppress the defenses so troops could be landed. That entails capital ships close enough to shore to use their main armament against the coastal defenses. During a blockade the ships wouldn't need to approach the coast that closely. Mines and submarines would still be a problem and one that doesn't have a satisfactory solution.
One last point. I think the close blockade would transition into a far blockade pretty quickly simply out of necessity. A close blockade is only possible of Germany's North Sea ports. shipping to and from the Baltic would have to be intercepted on the high seas. Really the only places that would be practical are the Skagerrak and the Long Forties (where the OTL far blockade was located). Of these two choices the Long Forties is the logical choice as it is farther from German bases and therefore harder for them to interfere with the blockading ships. It is also much closer to British bases which enables more ships to be on station at any given time and makes it easier to search intercepted ships for contraband. I think that the close blockade would rapidly transition into a far one simply due to logistics. If they're already intercepting German shipping in the North Sea then why maintain the close blockade at all? One thing with this train of thought is that British light forces would probably remain much more active in the Heligoland Bight than OTL and would suffer accordingly higher losses.
One last point. I think the close blockade would transition into a far blockade pretty quickly simply out of necessity. A close blockade is only possible of Germany's North Sea ports. shipping to and from the Baltic would have to be intercepted on the high seas. Really the only places that would be practical are the Skagerrak and the Long Forties (where the OTL far blockade was located). Of these two choices the Long Forties is the logical choice as it is farther from German bases and therefore harder for them to interfere with the blockading ships. It is also much closer to British bases which enables more ships to be on station at any given time and makes it easier to search intercepted ships for contraband. I think that the close blockade would rapidly transition into a far one simply due to logistics. If they're already intercepting German shipping in the North Sea then why maintain the close blockade at all? One thing with this train of thought is that British light forces would probably remain much more active in the Heligoland Bight than OTL and would suffer accordingly higher losses.
Riain
Banned
The example of the close blockade and the effectiveness of mines and U-boats to maintain it is the occupied Belgian coast in WW1. Here the British were able to sweep German mines and lay their own and conduct shore bombardment in the teeth of German U-boats and small craft.
The reason the RN couldn't conduct a close blockade of Germany was because the HSF was too strong, which gave the Germans 'escalation dominance' near their own coastline. If the RN tried to sweep the German mines the TBs would attack the minesweepers, leading to the RN escorting with destroyers, the Germans attacking the destroyers with cruisers, the RN responding with BCs and the Germans with BBs. Since it takes ages to properly sweep mines and hardly any time to re-lay them this would mean the RN would have to keep as many capital ships in the mid/east North Sea at all times to cover the minesweeping, perhaps a 1/4 of their force, day in and day out. This leads to the perfect opportunity fir the HSF to come out in force, smash this portion on the GF in battle and re-lay most of the swept mines in a single day, undoing a week or more work by the RN.
The reason the RN couldn't conduct a close blockade of Germany was because the HSF was too strong, which gave the Germans 'escalation dominance' near their own coastline. If the RN tried to sweep the German mines the TBs would attack the minesweepers, leading to the RN escorting with destroyers, the Germans attacking the destroyers with cruisers, the RN responding with BCs and the Germans with BBs. Since it takes ages to properly sweep mines and hardly any time to re-lay them this would mean the RN would have to keep as many capital ships in the mid/east North Sea at all times to cover the minesweeping, perhaps a 1/4 of their force, day in and day out. This leads to the perfect opportunity fir the HSF to come out in force, smash this portion on the GF in battle and re-lay most of the swept mines in a single day, undoing a week or more work by the RN.